The War Is Over - So Why The Bitterness?

Old Virginia Blog ^ | 10 April 2011 | Richard G. Williams, Jr.

[Davy Buck]

"The fact that it is acceptable to put a Confederate flag on a car *bumper and to portray Confederates as brave and gallant defenders of states’ rights rather than as traitors and defenders of slavery is a testament to 150 years of history written by the losers." - Ohio State Professer Steven Conn in a recent piece at History News Network (No, I'll not difnigy his bitterness by providing a link)

This sounds like sour grapes to me. Were it not for the "losers" . . .

[TheBigIf]

As I said it your view which is extreme and is not moral even. You belief in a ntaural right to tear down the rule of law. You believe in rebellion and anarchy, imo.

You claim that I am not an expert. Fine. But I claim that no expert would ever be good enough for you because you think that you can make up rights and law as you go along. You belief that treason is a right when it is not.

[phi11yguy19]

It is so amusing to see Lost Causers argue to defend their side’s position on continuing slavery for economic and social reasons as a so-called state right.

Ignoring the unnecessary and derogatory "LC" comment, where did the constitution take the determination of slavery from a state right to a federal right?

How about Lincoln's Republican Party's official platform statement in 1960 with regards to slavery:

"Resolved, 1. That the maintenance inviolate of the rights of the States, and especially the right of each State to order and control its own domestic institutions, according to its own judgment exclusively, is essential to that balance of power on which the perfection and endurance of our political fabric depends, and we denounce the lawless invasion by armed force of the soil of any State or Territory, no matter what pretext, as among the gravest of crimes."

Was Lincoln and his entire Republican party as ig'nant as muhself is?

[TheBigIf]

Your argument againt me is to claim that the Constitution admitted slavery as a State right.

How pathetic your argument is but you make it anyway.

That is why the LC term fits so well. You are a Lost Causer if you think that the Constitution allowed for slavery and still continue to argue that it did.

Of course Amendments were made and Lost Cuase democrats of the Progressive / Confederate alliance still continued to fight against liberty for ALL regardless just as you do now.

[Pelham]

Well said.

[central_va]

But I claim that no expert would ever be good enough for you because you think that you can make up rights and law as you go along.

All rights come from God. As for the USC it isn't followed anymore, Lincoln be-shat it and nobody has bothered to clean his stain. A constitution not followed is worse than no constitution at all. For this situation breeds contempt in the patriot and gives credence, a fig leaf to cover the naked ambition of the statist.

[phi11yguy19]

Does TheBigIf et al. claim Constitutional expertise greater than the "father" James Madison himself? From his papers:

"Should the provisions of the Constitution as here reviewed be found not to secure the Government and rights of the States against usurpations and abuses on the part of the United States, the final resort within the purview of the Constitution lies in an amendment of the Constitution according to a process applicable by the States.

And in the event of a failure of every constitutional resort, and an accumulation of usurpations and abuses, rendering passive obedience and non-resistance a greater evil, than resistance and revolution, there can remain but one resort, the last of all, an appeal from the cancelled obligations of the constitutional compact, to original rights and the law of self-preservation. This is the ultima ratio under all Government whether consolidated, confederated, or a compound of both; and it cannot be doubted that a single member of the Union, in the extremity supposed, but in that only, would have a right, as an extra and ultra constitutional right, to make the appeal."

Or mandatory reading at West Point for nearly two decades in the 1800s says:

"It depends on the state itself to retain or abolish the principle of representation, because it depends on itself whether it will continue a member of the Union. To deny this right would be inconsistent with the principle of which all our political systems are founded, which is, that the people have in all cases, a right to determine how they will be governed....

The secession of a state from the Union depends on the will of the people of such state. The people alone, as we have already seen, hold the power to alter their constitutions. But in any manner by which a secession is to take place, nothing is more certain than that the act should be deliberate, clear, and unequivocal. To withdraw from the Union is a solemn, serious act. Whenever it may appear expedient to the people of a state, it must be manifested in a direct and unequivocal manner."

[TheBigIf]

So then does the right to unilaterally secede from the rule of law come from God as well.

Is it an ‘individual right’ whereas anyone can just claim that they no longer are ruled by our Constitution?

Or do you just view as a special ‘group’ right whereas a politicak entity such as a state majority can have the ‘natural right’ given by God to secede from the rule of law?

Your position on this issue is immoral, imo.

[Cvengr]

There wasn’t nearly as much bitterness in the immediate aftermath of the War.

Sherman didn't win many hearts and minds in his Campaign to the Sea. The bitterness was felt for a century afterwards.

[TheBigIf]

But then again there is nothing in the Constitution to outline such.

So I guess I am a Constitutional expert in that matter.

For you though your treason is not supported by the words of Madison as being that there is nothing inn his words that support yours and the democrats party treason and support of slavery.

[phi11yguy19]

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, OR to the people.

I'm making a big assumption that Madison was good with conjunctions and knew the difference between "or" and "and". Millions of individual people didn't unite in the Constitution, several States did so. Is that so difficult to understand, or does K-State have an alias?

[phi11yguy19]

the Constitution has nothing to do with individual rights I guess.

Good guess! It was a document strictly defining the scope and limitations of the communal aka federal government handling inter and international relations among the states. All text and amendments were to limit the powers of federal government, not limit or grant power to individuals.

Unless of course you know of a different Constitution.

[TheBigIf]

The tenth Amendment proves perfectly how there was no right to unilateral secession by a state or states.

It specifically says that states (or the People) have powers NOT already delegated to the United States through the Constitution.

The Confederate democrats had no right in anyway to usurp these powers as the tenth Amendment states. The tenth Amendment makes it clear that the states have powers NOT delegated to the United State by the Constitution.

Of course the traitorous Confederate democrats wanted to ignore this Amendment though annd to claim that ALL rights were state rights and that they could could just unilaterally disregard the tenth Amendment and the entire Constitution based upon their immoral and perverted political views.

[phi11yguy19]

Woodrow Wilson was the first Southern (Confederate) democrat to gain the Presidency after the Civil War

Wow...ignorance squared!!!! How about Lincoln's SUCCESSOR!? Ever hear of Andrew Johnson? Democrat from secessionist North Carolina.

Nice theory though. I'm really curious how sturdy of an addition you can build on that house of cards.

[phi11yguy19]

It is the Confederates who should of sought an Amendment to justify their extremist views and not the other way around, imo.

In your esteemed opinion, where was the outrage in 1789?

[TheBigIf]

Of course though the limits placed all had to do with individual rights. I know the correct Constitution and not the distorted perversion of Confederate democrats or Progreesive democrats who followed them.

This it starts with ‘We the People’ and continues in ways to protect ‘individual rights’ and to form the proper means of ‘individual’ representation in self-governance.

It is you who read another Constitution. The one that has been written by the Confederate and Progressive KKK.

[phi11yguy19]

Please read this observation from the British...then stop you repeated ignorant use of the word "treason" (or answer the questions below which the North never did):

"Assuredly there is no disposition in this country to lean in favour of turmoil; but we cannot realize an act as that of rebellion or treason or piracy, simply because these names are applied to it. We are told that in the United States the people are sovereign. Here is an act committed by many millions of this sovereign people; against whom do they rebel? Can a sovereign, or a large portion of a sovereignty, be a rebel? In the usual meaning of our language rebellion is an act of the subject. Are, then, many millions of the sovereign people of the United States subjects, and to whom? Who is the monarch so supreme that in comparison even the sovereignty of the people may be termed a rebel? Is it the law? But where is the law? Assertions are not laws, nor yet ambitious theories, nor yet conceptions of advantage. Laws are enactments solemn, comprehensive, on known and legible record. Where, then, is the law which the States of the South have broken? And if in America the Government be merely an agent, then, as there exists no law that forbids the secession of a State, against whom or what do they rebel?"

[TheBigIf]

This to me reads like the words of a socialist democrat. It claims that if they can garner the numbers for revolt then it must be moral to overturn the rule of law even though it is not moral.

The acts of the Confederate democrats were treason then and the acts of the Progressive democrats are treason today.

In both cases they want to justify a disregard for the Constitution and the rule of law.

In all of the years up until today from the Civil War onward the democrat party still disregards morality and the rule of law. They are traitors.

[phi11yguy19]

OK, so once again, where in the constitution did the states delegate their right to accession and restrict their right to secession such that it isn't therefore a right reserved to the states per the 10th?

For the secessionist states to be usurpers of a federal power as you claim, they had to be usurping a power delegated in that document...so where is it?

Feel free to copy and paste or link...it's not that big of a document and I like to read.

[TheBigIf]

Do you not see that the mentality of your post is the same menatlity as the Marxist counter culture?

They as well said who should cast a rule of law on us. We will proclaim that freedom means rebellion. Rebellion against our parents, rebellion against the United States, rebellion against morality as well.

From the Confederate democrats up unto the Marxist counter culture and the democrat party Progressive movement there has always been the mentality that there is a natural right to rebel against God and the rule of law.

Rebellion against God and nature has been the hallmark of the democrat party from the days of the Confederates up unitl today and the Progressives.

[TheBigIf]

I have already told you that the tenth Amendment clearly makes secession illegal based upon the fact that it sepcifically states states rights to be those NOT delegated to the United State through the Constitution.

The States had no right then to usurp the rights delegated to the US if you believe in the 10th Amendment, which obviously you dont.